2: infrastructure pieces that already support Windows", which imo is a big part of why it feels harder. I also have done a ton of interop
I think that's because of legacy bureaucracy rather than real technical limitations. I'm not saying it's not needed at all, but rather ...
-
-
that some crufty ideology around what qualifies as a "well behaved package" is in need of some review.
-
Perhaps. I think dynamic linking still has its place... It's nice to not recompile the world for the weekly curl CVE!
-
But regardless of whether the current state of OS packaging is optimal or even correct, Rust did not target how they actually work
-
That's the social equivalent of targeting a different architecture and asking them to change it
-
It seems inappropriate to call a programming language unacceptable until it's willing to commit to a stable dynlinkable ABI.
-
That's the key. Nothing Rust could do other than commit to a stable ABI would be sufficient, and that's an unacceptable demand.
-
Also, packaging groups make exceptions to their rules (Chrome, for example), and it's very hard to even discuss these things.
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.